AA Liability - Don't take Meds controversy
Forums:
Much has been said about AA Sponsors getting their Sponcees to stop taking their prescribed medication and the disasters that follow. AA members have devised slogan based defenses about people attempting to hold AA or Sponsors responsible for their actions. This is a way to circumvent the slogan based defense and get some very much needed answers.
This tactic relies on “Culpability” and is also a geographically “localized” event in a area where Sponsor abuse happens. In essence this means that someone did something that they “should have known” can have disastrous consequences(like telling someone to go off their meds). Lawyers usually specialize in a particular area, such as Medical Malpractice or DUI cases.
When a Doctor or a therapist “recommends” AA as a followup, they are responsible for the follow through of that treatment and prescribing the correct treatment of the ailment. If the patient dies or is injured because of prescribing the incorrect treatment, the recommending agency is liable. If the recommended agency does not follow the treatment of Doctor or Therapist that is recommending them, they are liable. This type of case is handled by a lawyer specializing in Personal Injury and Negligence.
Lawyers have online forums for the states they reside in and the specialized fields they practice. If you ask a question seriously and do not start off bashing AA, just an unnamed person that perhaps caused a death or serious injury to a friend or loved one, they may answer you and give you some very valuable information for free. Please realize that AA trolls use search engines to find articles about AA and attempt to derail the thread. You can avoid this by not using the keywords that they search for. Example of two posting that say the same thing:
Example of something AA trolls will find and the lawyer will most likely not respond to:
“My husband just committed suicide because he went to AA because his Dr/Therapist told him to. His AA Sponsor told him to stop taking his meds against the Dr/Therapist’s orders and ended up killing himself. Can I bring legal action against the Dr/Therapist, AA and the AA sponsor?”
Example of something AA trolls will not find and the lawyer may respond to:
“My husband just committed suicide because he went off his prescribed medication because the Dr/Therapist sent him to followup with people that told him to quit taking his medication. Is there any legal action I can take?”
The idea here is that when an incident happens in a State, search for Lawyer boards in that State about Medical Malpractice and Negligence that take comments and leave something along the lines of the second second posting type. You will get answers, get people talking about it and you won’t be attacked by the AA trolls. You can also search out the Medical open forums and ask the same type of questions (without AA in them) and not be flamed with “slogans.”
aasux
Fri, 07/15/2011 - 22:56
Permalink
so a governing body mandated
so a governing body mandated that I attend meetings of a group of folks who are seriously deranged and brainwashed, and practice a unrecognized religion worshipping a false prophet. Hence, I was forced to attend a religious service by a state agency. At these gatherings I found people telling me to stop any medications as well as forcing prayer upon me. I was very upset and the pain and suffering caused been tremendous.
there, I hope the lawyers see this.
Jesus-is-Fraud
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 03:07
Permalink
Personal Experience and Opinions.
Personally I can't function on drugs...
But I dunno - some people DO want to keep using, and quit the boozing.
Some people ARE actually helped by the anti-depressants.
Some people just get worse on them.
And some people are better off just quitting them.
Some people do better with therapy.
Some people don't.
Some people need to be hassled to quit using.
Some people ought no to be hassled to quit using.
I think it has to be determined on a case by case basis.
I know for myself that I had to stop using - totally then and there.
But it took about 18 years of being drug free to get to the point of a radical change in consciousness - out of the depression.
It was like slowly coming over the rise of a BIG speed hump, and going "I don't have to talk in depressive ways or think in depressive terms, I have moved over the hump - things have changed".
Things could not have been any different than what they were - I don't believe that "anti-depressants" would have helped me.
Some people have taken them for depression, some people just want to cop out.
Some people think that depression is as a result of choosing to think depressive thoughts - that you are the thinker of the thoughts, and not the thoughts that you chose to think.
DeConstructor
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:00
Permalink
Under the Inouye case,
Under the Inouye case, coerced participation and conversion to the AA faith has been ruled as an infringement of basic constitutional rights.
AA, and their powerful business arm, the recovery industry cartel attempts to get around this ruling by armtwisting alleged 'diseased' persons into 'volunteering'- usually by very credible threats such as incarceration, job termination, or in some cases refusal of organs for transplant. We could really use documentation of this coercion, as AA and their industry is opening a 55 gallon drum of liability on themselves. I think by a little searching we can find a systematic effort to eagerly, willfully, and blatantly thumb their nose at the court.
There is also the question of liability when someone is killed in a drunk driving incident by a person who has been trained (perhaps at tax payer expense) that they have an incurable brain 'disease' by mandated indoctrination of the AA faith.
The substance abuse system in the US is the worst disaster in modern medical history. It has gotten so bad that the word 'rehab' is actually used as a punchline for late night comedians. Sooner or later they are going to have the daylights sued out of them.
Pennywise
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:21
Permalink
Brother, I think it is more
Brother, I think it is more complicated than that. AA does, after all, have 1st Amendement rights too. Also, alcoholism is an incurable disease according to the AMA. That does not mean the AMA is correct, but it would make it all that much more difficult to find AA liable given that the prevailing standards in the medical community back them up.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
DeConstructor
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:34
Permalink
Please get your facts straight
'Also, alcoholism is an incurable disease according to the AMA'
Although this is often claimed it the AA rooms it is merely a faith promoting rumor of the AA faith. The AMA does not claim it is incurable, nor does the AMA use the word 'alcoholism'
Again this is misinformation and disinformation promoted by AA. It is dangerous and it kills people. Unfortunately the medical/scientific/academic community is deafeningly silent on how their determinations (and in the case of the 'disease' of 'alcoholism) were lobbied into the acceptance of AA's hypothesis.
marietta davis
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:52
Permalink
for DeConstructor
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/alcohol/alcoholism_treatable.pdf
Pennywise
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:57
Permalink
Well, you probably know more
Well, you probably know more about it than I. The AMA does use the word "alcoholism" here: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/alcohol/alcoholism_treatable.pdf
Regardless, one of the potential roadblocks to suing AA is that it is common custom in the medical community to treat chemically dependent people with 12 Step theology. Even if such treatment is bunk (I think it is), sending drunks to AA is probably within the "customary" standard of care in the medical profession.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
DeConstructor
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 00:05
Permalink
I do not see a date of publication
the DSM IV does not use the words 'alcoholism' or 'alcoholics anonymous'
Pennywise
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 00:26
Permalink
It doesn't have to. In your
It doesn't have to. In your above post, you were talking about AA being liable in a lawsuit for the actions of members who drink more recklessly than they otherwise would due to their AA indoctrination. In my opinion, such a lawsuit would probably fail for several reasons.
For one, AA is protected by the 1st Amendment, and sponsors are not medical professionals and usually do not hold themselves out as such. It would be like suing the guy next to you on the bus after you take his advice that prayer alone will cure your cancer.
Second, if you were to sue a medical professional, in most jurisdictions you would have to show that he breached the custom of care in the field. Even if misguided, 12 step referrals are customary in the medical industry. So the professional you sue would probably call other experts in the field who would most likely testify that referring chemically dependant patients to AA is a widely accepted standard practice. In many jurisdictions, that would be the end of the lawsuit.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Persephone In Exile
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 07:46
Permalink
Curious that the first point
Curious that the first point int he 3rd section uses the whole "gateway drug" theory. I thought that had gone the way of the dinos. Well, certainly for alcohol and nicotine.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Pennywise
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 13:01
Permalink
No idea. I just know that
No idea. I just know that chemical dependency is classified as a disease. I'm certainly not saying I agree with that classification.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
marietta davis
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 23:46
Permalink
coffee and baloney
"AA, and their powerful business arm, the recovery industry cartel attempts to get around this ruling by armtwisting alleged 'diseased' persons into 'volunteering'- usually by very credible threats such as incarceration, job termination, or in some cases refusal of organs for transplant. We could really use documentation of this coercion ... "
I think you are the one who needs to provide documentation for this puzzling claim.
I know of no situation where a drunk driver who has killed someone (with his vehicle) got some special legal dispensation because he had a brain "disease". How about you provide a couple of case studies that I can mull over at breakfast?
DeConstructor
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 00:03
Permalink
I was not speaking of 'some special legal dispensation'
What I was refering to is the fact that people who commit the terrible sin of drinking while under the influence of the AA faith do drink harder. This was documented in the well run Ditman Study.
AA concocted a 'disease' and lobbied hard for the AMA to accept it. Google Marty Mann. The 'disease' of alcoholism also had to go to a hand vote, with at least one recent poll concluding that over 80% of US physicians claiming they did NOT consider 'alcoholism' to be an actual 'disease'.
My claim is that persons with multiple drunk driving incidents all have exposure to AA, and AA promotes misinformation to further their faith, the recovery industry, and Hazelden Publishing.
marietta davis
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 00:18
Permalink
yeah, well ...
"My claim is that persons with multiple drunk driving incidents all have exposure to AA, and AA promotes misinformation to further their faith, the recovery industry, and Hazelden Publishing."
This may be your claim now, but in your earlier post this was not at all what you were promoting.
The argument over whether or not alcoholism is a disease will NEVER be resolved. It is like the argument in this country on abortion. There is extremely scant middle ground - people are either "fer it" or "agin it".
For whatever study you post I am betting there is an equally compelling post somewhere in the archives to counter it. I don't care about what someone's data tell you. It's all a squirrelly numbers game and nobody wins by quoting and counter quoting. If you must live your life and make your daily decisions based on what Sir John Quagmire's 1973 Study on the Probability of Molecular Implosion reveals, well, then, have at it.
A hand vote ~ oooooooohhhh!